The Pros and Cons of Confidence

Miguel pointed his readers to an essay by Bill Wittle about confidence and why it contributed to America's greatness.

I read most parts of Bill's essay. (It is way long) What he says about confidence really hits the spot in terms of how Americans think in my opinion.
Most things are achieved in the US because of this absolute belief that they can be achieved.
Other countries lack that spirit. My country (Germany) for example is not confident at all.
Well, we all know the reason for that... last time we were confident we killed millions of people because we thought we were the best.
Anyway, as good as confidence is... overconfidence can be dangerous. And I don't mean as grim an example as the German one here. But maybe sometimes confidence leads you to errors, wrong decisions and you might fail your purpose although you acted with great confidence and meant really well.

The Iraq war is one of the main sources fueling this kind of discussion but it is not a good example because it hasn't ended, yet. I'd say we could talk about that in like ten or even twenty years. If by then a working democracy based on the free will of the Iraqi people is in place we can all bow down to the spirit of confidence that led there. If Iraq is still in trouble with terrorists, rebels who think of themselves as freedom fighters or if a corrupt and/or oppressing system is in place we might acknowledge that overconfidence led to the situation.

A nice quote from Bill's essay is:

"...if we actually believe the US is the source of all the misery in the
world,... then something is indeed very wrong with our foundation..."

Of course it isn't. And everybody who thinks otherwise is in need of a quick reality check.
But what if I said:
The US is the source of all the greatness in the world.
Or
Nothing other than greatness has come from American soil.
Wouldn't I need a reality check as well?
Now, I don't know a single person who actually and literally would have claimed that. The confidence, however, with which the US is trying to spread its opinions, its way of life, its products and anything maybe disturbing for others.

Look, I really try to understand the American psyche. A nation founded on the principle:
We can! I lived in the US and tried to embrace that principle. But please don't take it to extremes!
If you think, we must because you can then you are at the point of overconfidence clouding your view for reasonable arguements. (And promoting the rule of the fist over the democratic culture of debate, which is ironic because you are actually trying to promote democracy)

I have observed that a plea like mine is received very defensively in the US. If I question your judgement then I am favoring "the enemy". Don't paint in black and white.

Recently, so called "Old Europe" sometimes acted as if it knew everything better while it actually didn't. Please don't do the same.

Not everyone who dares to criticize certain decisions of your politicians is either a well meaning, naive hippy or a "stinking commie".

(Those paragraphs about the stinking commies, the losers and so on... they remind me of the communist witch hunts in McCarthy's era. Please don't start seing a communist in everyone who has a stronger social conscience than the bootstraps-belief. You can only pull yourself out of a mess by your bootstraps if society gave you the opportunity to have boots.

I think, communists are the tiniest group among the people criticizing US government's decisions. But it is pretty convenient not having to deal with arguments if you can cry "commie!" instead.)

In any case,
finally I think I found the fundamental difference between the American and the Old-Europe psyche: In contrast to the confidence of "We can" in Europe there is this belief in the law. The way to the war in Iraq seems to be a good example for that. (Iraq is not a good example however to measure whether America's action was driven by confidence or overconfidence as I mentioned above)

This belief in law has flaws, arguably. Sometimes we are rigid. We didn't want to start a war in Iraq because we were not sure wether the outcome would be better than the current situation. When the US decided they wanted to wage that war (in order to install a democratic Iraqi regime) but not all by themselves, they searchedUN approval. But none would come because the UN couldn't agree on that Saddam's breaches of UN resolutions were important enough to wage war. So some guy in the US government or in an association closely related to it may have felt the obligation to forge evidence about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Either that or the people analyzing data about possible WMD were just incompetent for the job.

So in a way, the European rigidness of believing in law may have forced that forgery because America wanted to appeal to our kind of reasoning in order to convince us of what they (confidently) knew: That they were right as well as the war was right(eous) .

Maybe a departure from both sides would be a good idea. If Europeans understood that law is not always more important than human life and if Americans understood that they can be wrong even though they are confident of their decisions then we could all grow as people and help create a better world, couldn't we?

Sometimes, everything that is needed is the courage to admit to have been wrong. That goes to Europeans and Americans alike. As I said, for the Iraq situation it is too early to tell.

But, I may be wrong about that. :-)

Fahrenheit 9/11

Well, I finally got to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 tonight. I had mentioned in an earlier post that Michael Moore might influence the election but I am not so sure about that anymore.

I have to say, the movie transports its message in a very powerful fashion. However, I am not the one Moore was trying to convince. I am an outsider, a foreigner, a German living in Germany. What good does it do that I know that there where no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and that no link could be found between Saddam and Al-Qaeda?

The American public ought to have been convinced by this movie but obviously it wasn't. President Bush may very well be re-elected. Or maybe the public even acknowledges that it was being lied to but doesn't think that Senator Kerry would be any better.

This film is meant to drive Bush out of office. It is propaganda. Is it bad because of this?
I think Fox News is as one-sided. Propaganda goes both ways.

Anyway, so many people talked about this movie, praising it, denouncing it... in the end it won't make a difference. The DVD release probably was meant to boost the Democratic Candidate Kerry. I don't know whether it does. But I guess the impact of the film on the election could have been greater if it had been released only one or two months prior to the election.

Good thing though it wasn't released on September 11th. That would have appeared tasteless.

Some more movie recommendations

I have been a lazy blogger, recently.

But I went to the movies. :-)

I really enjoyed Girl with Pearl Earring. This is the title of a painting by Dutch 17th century artist Vermeer.
The movie is a fictional version of how that painting came to be.

Also interesting but not so recent:

Open Range by Kevin Costner. Beautiful landscape shots! I especially liked the slow, slow build up to a thrilling "bullet-intensive" climax.
Not your conventional Western movie, if you ask me.

I don't know whether it will be released in the US but it's worth it:
Der Untergang.
This movie is about the last days inside the Führerbunker based on the autobiography of Hitlers secretary Traudl Junge.
Quite a shocking movie for me. I think this is as close as it gets to see Hitler's menace and yet the reason why he was so appealing to the folks at the time. (He could appear quite charming or caring in private life.)

Next movie I am planning on watching is Fahrenheit 9/11. Let's see what all the fuzz is about.

Small Animation (1,5MB)

I want to give you a small animation in Poser 5.

My M.A. (history) is about a soldier from the 30 Years War who left a diary. In my PhD I will elaborate on the subject.

Anyway, this Quick Time clip is part of the intro sequence in my DVD. Apparently the soldier had taken notes for all these years but he rewrote the whole book while he was stationed in Memmingen between 1647 and 1649. By that time he had been a soldier for at least 24 years. That's why I gave him grey hair.

The clip is originally 1024x768 but for sake of loadability (is there such a word?) I reduced the resolution to half the size. Well, this animation is not very professionally done, I only wanted to include a 3d impression into my intro.

The DVD includes about an hour of video footage, mainly created by myself, music and an interactive version of the diary (meaning one can read the pages because I scanned them). For people not familiar with the old orthography and handwriting of the 17th century in general one can click a play-button and let the text be read by me.

The main scientific achievment is that I found out the name of the author. First few and last few pages are missing so it wasn't clear who the author was. Doing some research in archives which were not destroyed by one of the numerous wars in Germany since 1648 I found what I was looking for.

I think the DVD could have the potential to be published and sold but I can't do that... because I don't own all the copyrights.

I will deal with this problem in my PhD. I want to study the possibilities of using self produced multimedia resources in education, especially in history classes in secondary school.

My intention in giving this long, long explanation was to let you know that this 3d animation is not state-of-the-art because I had to deal with so many other fields when doing a project of this magnitude all by myself.

BTW, I will start my PhD later this year.

War on terror - the big picture?

Still occupied by Miguel's wish list for the US presidency.
In his blog the long term strategy for the war on terror is discussed.

I was never convinced that the US had the right strategy in this struggle. But believe me, I don't flatter myself in trying to give an easy solution.

Concerning the war on terror strategy persued by the US some points remain unclear for me. I can't quite get them. I'd like to share them with you here.

Well, what is the long term plan for the war on terror? Can you basically sum it up to bringing democracy by the sword and scare the hell out of any potential opponent with the threat of invasion? Will potential terrorists be hunted down and killed all over the world?

Will other countries have to be invaded? If so, which will be likely? Iran? Syria? What about Saudi Arabia? North Korea? Will the people in these countries hail the incoming troops as liberators or side with their fellow countrymen?

Is the war on terror a Last-Man-Standing battle of good vs. evil? Is it likely to win it? Is there a possibility to lose it?

When will the Bush administration begin to feel safe and ready to stop fighting? After all terrorists are gone? Will they ever?
Will a decade (Miguel mentions that time frame) of terrorist attacks and retaliation/preemptive strikes lead to peace, liberty, tolerance and democracy?

Why does this sound like Utopia?



Edit: I watched parts of an interview with G. W. Bush today. It was from his campaign bus.
He said that the war on terror could not be won but that we could make it harder for the terrorists. I agree here.

Social security: An issue for the state or the individual?

Inspired by Miguel's wish list for what kind of candidate he would vote in the upcoming US election I want to say something about one of the issues he mentioned: social security.

I am not a fan of the German social security system (anymore). It is just too expensive. We are in the middle of a painful reform process.

Some people think we should abandon a federal system of social security altogether. Maybe we should leave it to the individual citizen to take care of building up his retirement funds, choosing med insurance, doctors, hospitals, schools,... whatever. I think, however that this is not as fair as it sounds.

Of course, I don't like the idea that a hard working tax payer finances a 24/7 vacation of others.
But being able to choose in the social security sector is a good thing only if you have equally good options to choose from.
I don't think that is the case in any country in the world. Therefore I think that some sort of government spending is required to ensure the constitutional rights, especially equal opportunities. The old German system was too expensive, had some loopholes, needed reform. I doubt that the new German system will be perfect, I hope it will be better than the old one but I am not sure.

But I am sure that a social security system that is not based on solidarity in the broadest sense violates the principles of democracy and can eventually lead to its downfall. It doesn't even need a revolution for that. Social peace is important to make sure that the state is supported by its people. Government systems that don't have the support of its people become powerless and will eventually vanish.

I am convinced that a solidarity-based social security system is a prerequisite for social peace. And social peace is a prerequisite for a democracy.

A few movies to watch

After recommending some books I would like to draw your attention to some movies that I consider worth watching.

Let's start with a classic: Billy Wilder's One Two Three. Set in Berlin July 1961 (one month before the Berlin Wall was erected) it tells the story of a CocaCola representative being troubled by the daughter of his boss, who ...

***Spoiler*** (mark the text to read the spoiler)
runs off to East Berlin and marries an East German Communist.
*** End of Spoiler***

It is a very fast paced comedy. You 'll have to watch the movie like 10 times to get all jokes.
Back in the 60s it flopped, probably due to bad timing of the release. With the wall up noone seemed to like a comedy about East and West Berlin.

Another movie set in Berlin is Good Bye Lenin. I mentioned it at the bottom of an earlier post. It is a serious comedy that brings us back to the next most significant point of Berlin history: The fall of the wall in 1989.

***Spoiler***
a young man is at a forbidden rally in East Berlin when his socialist mother sees him being arrested. She falls into a coma and awakes miraculously months later. But everything had changed. The wall was gone. Western products in the shelves...
Doctors say that the sudden shock of this could kill her. So her son sets up a show for her pretending that the GDR (East Germany) still existed in order to save her life.
***End of Spoiler***

This movie is about a loving son-mother relationship, about hanging on to things that are bound to change, about loss of things you know and about new beginnings.
It won several international awards, really worth watching... Not many good movies come from Germany these days, but this is one of them.


For now this must be enough. I will continue some other time with movies not connected to Berlin.

A few books to read (Part One)

Hi, in my previous post I recommended Les Liaisons Dangereuses. It really is a good yet shocking book.

But I have decided to let you in on a few other literary works that I recommend reading.

Die Abenteuer des Werner Holt by Dieter Noll:
This is about an adolescent during World War II who goes through a process from naively believing nazi propaganda to disillusion and resistance.
One could argue that it is for WW2 what Remaque's All Quiet on the Western Front is for WW1.

Werner Holt is not available in English as far as I know, so read Remarque, if you haven't already. It is stunning.

If you are interested in ancient Rome and like crime stories read John Maddox Robert's SPQR series. These books are very well researched and a lot of fun to read. All the most important characters and events of the late Roman Republic are described from the point of view of a fictinous son of one of the most important arisocratic families of that time, the Metelli. This guy, Decius, meets Crassus, Pompeius, Cicero, Cato, Catilina, Coldius, Milo, Caesar and even Cleopatra.
The first book of the series is called The King's Gambit. The second book is about the Catiline conspiracy. It is my favourite from the series.
The author works his way from 70BC (book no. 1) to 49BC (book no. 9) I am sure he will cover Caesar's death eventually.
The series is full of suspense yet funny and very educational as well.

Speaking of Rome: For the early Empire (1st century AD) I recommend Robert Graves' fictional autobiography of the Emperor Claudius which comes in two parts.

There is a great BBC mini series available on DVD which is believed to be the best mini series ever put on film. Playing time about 12 hours. Have food and drinks close to the couch because you 'll get hooked easily.

To be continued...

No motivation to post about new things

Recently, I have had no drive to express myself on the net. I still don't.
I am just posting this so that you know that I intend to post again (and regularly I might add) but not now.
 
The thing I am looking forward to at the moment is the one week vacation with my girl friend in early August. Probably I will post more often after that.
 
For the time being I want to share with you what I chose for holiday reading.
Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Choderlos De Laclos. You probably know the story because the teen movie Cruel Intentions starring Sarah Michelle Gellar and Reese Witherspoon is based on that book. I read that this film of 1999 was already the fourth adaption of the classic novel.
 
It was published in 1782 and is about morale of the aristocracy in pre-revolution France, so to speak.
Since I watched the American-high-school-version I wanted to read the original as well.
 
I highly recommend the book.

East Berlin, West Berlin

I was also asked to say something about cultural differences between East and West Berlin.
I am from the West, my girlfriend is from the East. I live in Reinickendorf, she lives in Hellersdorf. There are like 30 km between us.

Are there still differences?
Yes, while Berlin is definitely growing together, this is not happening with the speed most people hoped.
Many people in former West Berlin feel like they gave a lot of money to people who wouldn't work with enough effort, therefore the East appears to them as a money swallowing bottomless pit. This is - of course - doing East Berliners injustice. What is true, however is that many people in former East Berlin needed some time to adapt to West German way of life. Of course many of them don't want to. And that is totally fine. People in East Germany didn't revolt in order to become just like West Germans, they revolted in order to gain similar liberties and similar standard of living. While remaining with a different cultural identity is no big deal in one's spare time it was expected of them to assimilate in work life because (no matter whether it is sad or not) West Germans run the show economically.

On the other hand many people from former East Berlin are disappointed with what happened after reunification. They hoped to gain the standard of living of West Germans of their generation. Instead they lost their jobs because the East German industry couldn't compete well enough and many of them became welfare cases. They wanted to work and felt like 2nd tier citizens when they saw that they didn't get the chance to contribute. The problem wasn't always the bad state of East German industry. Often times Western companies received government money for transforming East German companies into a modern industry. The outcome was often the opposite: Managers bought the companies, took the money from the government and then let the East German economy die. It was an easy way to get rid of competition.
Again, there are two sides, however. Large parts of the economy are productive now after releasing like 90% of their work force.


When you look at Berlin today, yes it is growing together. There are parts where it is hard to determine whether they belonged to the East or to the West. On the other hand the differences can not be overlooked either. They also translate into election results. The socialist PDS party which had goverened the GDR under its original name SED for 40 years gets a large share of votes in East Germany. In Berlin it has enough votes to form a coalition government with the SPD.
It has been widely discussed in Germany whether the PDS would be a passing phenomenon or not. Well, I can't judge on that. My estimate is that it will remain influential as long as there are people who are not content with capitalism. This may be a long, long time.

Another thing to cultural differences is the phenomenon of "Ostalgie" a word play from Nostalgie, meaning a romantic image of what life was like in the GDR.
So special Ostprodukte are being bought again, movies are being made about how fun it was to be young in East-Berlin, and so on.
Famous movies of that sort are "Sonnenallee" (a comedy) and "Good Bye, Lenin" (a more serious comedy about the months of change in 1989/90).
While both movies made tons of money in Germany the second one is very successful internationally, as well. You can get it on amazon.com. (Btw, I recommend both.)

Finally, I would like to stress that I am not an expert in all of this. I am just reflecting some of the things I notice in everyday life. If you have questions or differing opinions, I 'll be glad to read and respond to them.

Turkish people in Berlin

I have been asked to say something about Turkish people in Berlin (in response to my comment on May 1st riots and that they have nothing to do with the Turkish community)
So I thought about Turkish people in Berlin. The first answer is quite striking, I don't know that many.
Most of them live in other parts of Berlin: Kreuzberg, Schöneberg, Wedding, Neukölln (all parts of former West Berlin). I live in Reinickendorf. (Northern part of former West Berlin) When the Turkish people came as foreign workers during the 60s they came into neighborhoods with more affordable rents. To a large extent they still live there.

So the few Turkish people I know, don't live in these areas:
1. A colleague of my mom. I played with his kids (same age as me) when we where young
2. My doctor. He graduated from medical school in Istanbul before coming to Germany. He lives around the corner.
3. A classmate. In my graduation year from highschool we were 128 graduates. One of them was Turkish.

On the other hand, there are areas in Berlin where turkish people are the majority. However, I would not see those areas as ghettos or slums. I have accidentally come through a slum in Chicago and have been through some less nice neighborhoods of LA, I don't see any areas in Berlin that could compare.

These days talking about people who pray to Allah is often connected to radical Islamism. There are many mosques in Berlin and Islamism is an issue. However, Berlin has worse problems than Islamism. While some German girls are afraid to walk through Wedding by night, I am not. I actually feel more threatened in other areas of Berlin like Marzahn or Hellersdorf. These areas in former East Berlin are notorious for skinheads and neo-nazis.

In summary,
a lot is left to do to integrate foreign people better into our community while not making them abandon their cultural identity. It is tough and both sides need to increase their efforts. However, the Turkish community in Berlin always has been and still is a valuable part of Berlin culture.
Even the Nazis eat Döner Kebab. (famous Turkish fast food, first made in Berlin and nowhere else to be found cheaper or better than here)

The Great Wet Wedding

My younger brother tied the knot today with Julia. The had been engaged for years. Today was the official state ceremony. Tomorrow they will marry in church fashion.

Unfortunately the weather is bad. It is a mix of rain and sunshine. I am pretty moved by the whole thing, however. How long will it be till I am married? I guess it will not be before 2007. Maybe even later. In three years I 'll be 30. Still not that old. So, there is no reason to rush anything. :-)

By now, I can't offer any pics from the wedding. I have some pics from bachelor's night, however.
Not all of them are very presentable, though.
My bro was dressed up in a weird costume (somehow like little red ridinghood) and had to collect kisses from the girls we met while touring through one of Berlin's top tourist areas in the city center, the Oranienburger Straße.


The next one was fun. She was from Sweden:


Somehow she distracted our cameraman...


I am the one with the bright red tie.


At the end of the day, some of us needed a rest...


Some more than others:

PSCI: Spinoza

Yesterday, I attended my weekly PSCI class again. This time we talked about Spinoza. (see other works by him as well)

Of course, I had heard of him before. However, usually he seems to be regarded as something of a footnote to Thomas Hobbes. But he has a lot more to offer. (Hobbes' philosophy with democratic twist, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, separation of church and state)

Unfortunately, I am in a hurry. I hope to write more about Spinoza later.

Discussion on Anti-Americanism

A very heated discussion on Anti-Americanism has been going on for some time on LivingInEurope.net

If you are interested in that sort of thing have a look. It might take an hour or so to read through the thread.
I commented as well, most recently towards reasons for Germany's mediocre army and lack of war-enthausiasm.

Hannah Arendt: power and violence

Yesterday, that PSCI class was on Hannah Arendt and the opinion that Habermaß had on her work.


I am sorry, but I am in a hurry. So I am afraid this post will not be comprehensive.

When I mentioned last week that Carl Schmitt had very clear (easy to understand) definitions for the main terms of his work this is even more true for Hannah Arendt. We talked about "Macht und Gewalt". (This might be the English edition but I am not quite sure.)

She differentiates between terms like strength, power, force, authority and violence because using those terms synonymously would imply that politics could be reduced to the simple question of who governs whom? She disagrees and give definitions of the terms.

She says that power can never be exercised by a single person (that would be strength or violence) but only by a group acting jointly. This means for states that the power can only come from the people. In democracies this is obvious but she explains why this would even more so be the case for a monarchy.

The monarch is only one. If his people decide not to follow his orders he will be killed. Only as long as a significant proportion of the people backs the monarch he can rule.

So, one could ask the question: What do I need power for if I can exercise violence?

Her point is you wouldn't be able to exercise violence for a long time. The monarch can't do anything if his orders aren't followed.

This ties into her analysis of the phenomenon of revolutions.

She says that whenever revolutionary violence met state violence then the state won.

However, successful revolutions happen when the state loses its means to exercise violence (meaning if army officers refuse to fire at the people).
The downfall of the GDR might be explained this way. The policemen just opened the border to West-Berlin instead of shooting at the crowd although they had received no order to let anyone through. Infact, people who had ben trying to come to West-Berlin had been fired at for more than 20 years at the time.

However, Arendt is not saying that revolutions are bound to occur whenever a regime is powerless. Regimes like that can last a while if there is no (organised) group who would claim the power and responsibility by acting jointly. She gives France as an example. (In the 1960s there was a student revolt which in her opinion could have overthrown the regime. But that had never been the intention of the students.)

Arendt's concept of power also is related to legitimacy. (this is obvious from the way she defines power in contrast to violence) The people are sovereign in Arendt's philosopy.

I'll have to run now. Maybe I'll post more later. Comments and additional info are welcome (as usual).

No Love Parade in 2004

Well, it is not really news anymore: There will be no Love Parade in Berlin this year. Although many attempts had been made in order to save this festivity the organizers couldn't find a way to finance it.

The Love Parade is the largest Techno Party on the planet. Still... for those who have never heard of it(I don't know where you have been for the past ten years), here is a history of the event.

Anyway, the Love Parade has always been controversial. While many people supported it because it brought tourists to town (about a million for the weekend during the best years of the event) others stressed the negative effect on Berlin's parks. The parade route led right through the Tiergarten (sort of the equivalent of New York's Central Park for Berlin).
Garbage and urin from several hundred thousands of techno lovers wasn't really good for flora and fauna.

I didn't enjoy the event very much. But that is mostly connected to the fact that I don't like techno music.

A few years ago - right before Love Parade weekend - I was riding the subway when a few rhimes came to my mind. Since it was boring to sit in the train I tried to make a poem out of them.

When I had reached my destination I just had to write them down. The poem is meant to be a little funny. I didn't want to insult any techno fan. Ok, here it is. (I never translated the poem, sorry):

Der Raver

Jedes Jahr zur Sommerszeit
Im Juli macht er sich bereit,
Damit er durch Berlin nun tanze.
Love Parade - so heißt das Ganze.

Ob die Sonne scheint, oder ob's regnet,
Mit Enthausiasmus reich gesegnet
Erträgt der Raver Hitz' und Nässe,
Solang nur aufgedreht die Bässe.

Erblickt er eine schmucke "Sie",
Schluckt er Red Bull und Ecstasy,
Um für den Balztanz fit zu sein.
Natürlich sagt sie da nicht nein.

Im Tiergarten, so in der Mitte,
Sie pfeifen auf die gute Sitte
Und geben sich der Liebe hin;
Der Raver mit der Raverin.

Doch... leider hat er's nicht geahnt:
Der Freund der Raverin, er bahnt
Den Weg zum Liebespaare sich
Und schlägt den Raver fürchterlich.

Halbtot liegt er am Wegesrand,
Die Mutter hätt' ihn kaum erkannt.
Und doch er freut sich - das ist klar -
Auf's nächste Mal, in nächsten Jahr.

Political theorist Carl Schmitt and Nazi ideology

On Tuesdays I attend a psci class on modern theories of democracy.
Yesterday we talked about Carl Schmitt's Concept of the Political (in the edition of 1932).

For Schmitt politics comes down to a simple question. Friend or foe? Therefore political action is uniting with your friends to fight the foe. If you quarrel with someone but none of you would be (at least theoretically) willing to use arms then it is not politics.

He mainly views politics as something international (conflicts between states). However, he says that so-called partisan politics can be politics if there is a chance for civil war emerging from the differences.

He also states that politics is completely separate from good/evil, beautiful/ugly, useful/harmful. This means your enemy could be good and beautiful and useful and still be your enemy.

The only thing determining the enemy would be the feeling that someone/something would be so foreign and different that you feel threatened in your way of life by it.

Of course it is obvious that the Nazis shared these positions when singling out the Jews as their enemies using this kind of reasoning for their genocide. Your Jewish neighbor could be morally good, nice, helpful and still would have to be eliminated because "Jewism" would threaten the "German way of life".

While the connotations are not clear in this edition in 1932, they are implied. The more we get into the 1930s the more Schmitt is coming clearer with what he means. In later works he names the foe. The foes are the Jews.

Schmitt felt his work as an answer to earlier theorists, especially to Thomas Hobbes. Therefore he published a discussion on the Leviathan himself in 1938.

Schmitt agrees with Hobbes that the state of nature is brutal, a war of everyone against everyone. While Hobbes constructs a social contract that enables people to fly from that grim state at least within a nation(Hobbes is a liberalist in that sense because it is the people who constitute society even if it is an absolute monarchy) Schmitt denies that ability. For him the state of nature is a reality that we have to recognize in order to be ready to deal with it. This is how he comes to the simple question: friend or foe?

In summary, Schmitt's theory is fit to justify genocide out of some paranoid notion.

Endless discussions have been going on about whether one can use some parts of his work in modern political discourse. Some would distinguish between his very clear analysis of political processes and the conclusions he and his followers drew from that analysis.

The fact that Schmitt's thinking still prevails (sometimes people don't even know that they think along Schmitt's lines) makes it obvious at least that we will talk about his ideas in the future.

Opera with a special guest

I went to the opera yesterday night. Salome by Strauss. While waiting in the lobby the newly elected German president and his wife walked by. Whoever recognized him greeted him friendly and he was so kind.

Later he took his front row center seat and was applauded by the audience. He seems to be a very humble man. I just feel sorry for him if that was his first visit to the Deutsche Oper Berlin. Well, the director gave a very unusual setting for the story. It was all placed in a madhouse. Salome played with a very realistic head of John, blood everywhere. Finally when Salome is killed her limbs fly around...
graphic, to say the least. Furthermore Prof. Köhler got a perfect up-skirt view on Salome when she was lying on her back, feet to the audience.

Anyway, the singing and acting was exquisite. For me, that saved the day.

Keeping track of user traffic

From now on there will be no illusions about how many people read my blog because I included some code to analyse user traffic.

I use statcounter. It is free and very powerful. Time will show if there is any downside to it. They say they don't sell any private information, neither of me nor of my users. They say they earn money from ads shown to me on their site when I check the statistics and from nothing else.

There is an option to let anyone see my statistics but I don't plan to use that option. Unless there is a way to limit the results shown. For example, I would show from which countries users access my site but not from which town or IP. Haven't figured these things out yet.

A good thing is that my own visits on my blog won't be counted because a cookie is blocking that function for my browser. I guess since I probably only have very few readers my own visits would distort the results a lot.

Prof. Köhler new German President

A new President has been elected today. Prof. Horst Köhler will take over from Johannes Rau in July.
Köhler is an economy expert. He used to be the head of the International Monetary Fund and only stepped down from that function in order to be a candidate for the office of Germany's highest representative.

His opponent Prof. Gesine Schwan is an expert in Political Science. I am sure that both candidates would have served the country well.

Prof. Köhler outlined the issues important to him in his first speech as elected president. He stressed that Germany has to become a family friendly country, he stressed the importance to use Globalisation in order to fight poverty and injustice and furthermore he talked about the need for inner reforms. Germany will have to be transformed into a country of ideas.

(As a sidenote: Köhler did something uncommon for German politicians. He asked for God's blessing for the country.

Last year I criticised trends in US politics to utilize religion for politic goals.

I still hold true to this opinion. However, Prof. Köhler's plea for God's blessing had nothing political. In contrast to what I have criticised he never created the impression that God's blessing would favor Germany above all the other countries of the world.)

Quo vadis, Iraq?

How long will it take until Iraq can have peace? I don't know. Will the "coalition of the willing" bring it? Again, I don't know. Somehow, I get the suspicion that the Bush administration is looking for an easy exit. They continue to press on handing over government action to Iraqi officials quickly.

Sounds good? Yes, sounds good. But it might be done for a selfish purpose: If Iraqis are in power again, the Bush administration can claim not to be responsible anymore and pull the troops out...
To what end? My guess is that after a sizable period of total chaos a fundamentalistic system will emerge. The Middle East won't get safer but more instable than it already is. That doesn't sound so good, does it?

I have been following the news about the torture scandal for several weeks now. Up until now, I didn't want to write anything about it, because the facts were not easy to comprehend. Furthermore it seemed unclear whether the accusations are thruthful or if the pictures were forged. In the blogs I read, this issue has hardly been discussed as well. Maybe it is time for this, now.

I just read a lenghty essay in New York Times (online) Magazine by Susan Sontag about the torture pictures from Iraq.
(If you don't already have a free nytimes account you need to open one in order to read the article.)

While I don't agree with everything she says, I fully support her criticism towards holding "detainees" indefinitely. America came to bring law and order and freedom (or so Bush said). Some U.S. soldiers seem to have missed that during briefing. (Referring to the torture/abuse scandal)

The other explanation, of course, would be all the more horrible... that soldiers might have been briefed to abuse the prisoners. Would that surprise us? Not me. Maybe that sort of thing is bound to happen if government officials keep saying: "THEY attacked us, we strike back." Iraq attacked? With what? Where is the clear link to Al Qaeda? It's here. Oh, and while we are on the subject... where are the Iraqi WMD?

Many people around the world, but especially in the Middle East, might regard the photos as proof for an American attitude of superiority. An attitude that says we are better than you, we have a right for our liberties but you don't. You are just like dogs therefore you get leashed.

Of course, this doesn't do the majority of Americans justice. So many Americans I know are just proud of their country. Why not? However, I don't agree with the Bush administration to label the tortures in Iraq un-american. There is no such thing. Bad people live in all countries.

America stands for a lot of good things, even for some "good" wars. But it has a record of atrocities as well. Which country doesn't? Still, some Americans tend to forget their own share of it. Slaugther of civilians in Vietnam, genocide on the American Indians, Concentration camps for Japanese during WW2... Today similar camps exist as well. Look to Cuba or to the prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq.

(Another issue would be the detention of German soldiers at the end of WW2 on the "Rheinwiesen". It is hard to find reliable sources on this. Official sources indicate that 5000 to 10000 people died of starvation and deseases in the swamp-like Rheinwiesen. Inofficial numbers go up to 750000. The issue is not widely discussed. Unfortunately, most sources seem to come from a right-wing background. Therefore they may very well be biased. So at the moment I can not tell you which numbers are correct.)

Are these things un-american? What is American? Hamburgers and BBQ or guns and lynch law? Labeling the tortures in Iraq un-american is the attempt to find an easy way out of this mess. It implies: "Just a few erroneous soldiers, but the system is great." I challenge the notion of moral superiority.
Democracy lives because of checks and balances. Even in times of war this should not be forgotten. Sad thing is, the war on terror seems to justify almost anything.

EDIT: I posted this last night at 2.30 in the morning. I was very sleepy, so I didn't make myself clear at all points. I tried to correct that this morning.

Filmmaker Michael Moore

Michael Moore is an interesting guy. He is the most successful left-wing activist in the US although coming only from a highschool background. He is from Flint, MI and used to edit a paper there until he made the famous documentary Roger and Me in 1989.

In this movie he shows the downfall of his hometown from the car capital of the world to the worst place to live in the US (according to Money Magazine) I couldn't find the list of worst places online but you 'll find it in the movie. He criticised General Motors for laying of thousands of workers while earning record profits.

Until now Moore has continued to show and attack aberrations in society. During a tour through the country promoting his book "Downsize this!" he made a new film: The Big One. In this movie, he addresses a variety of issues leading to the climax of the film when Moore interviewed Nike CEO Phil Knight. He was trying to convince him to stop producing shoes in Indonesia with child labor and instead to open a shoe factory in Flint.

In 2003 Moore received an Oscar for his documentary "Bowling for Columbine". His reception speech made news world wide because he attacked President Bush in it.

Bowling for Columbine is a large scale assault on the gun lobby in the US headed by Charlton Heston.

Moore's style is to use a mix of compassion and humor. He shows compassion for the victims and ridicules the people he deems responsible. However, he never makes fun of them directly. Instead he trys to let them make fools out of themselves on their own.

His new movie Fahrenheit 9/11 is competing at the Festival in Cannes right now. It has been very well received there.
This one is said to be aimed at unsure voters of the US. Moore is trying to convince them to vote Bush out of office. Apparently Moore is showing connections of Bush's clan to Saudi princes and the Bin Laden family. Furthermore he is reporting that Bush spent half of his time as president on vacation till 9/11.

Anyway, Moore is an interesting guy because he might be decisive on who will lead the US for the next four years.

Change of style

I changed the look of my blog.

seems like no comments from old post can be transfered.

Am sorry for that.

Standards of morale, family values, bigotry?

Politics very often is a morale issue. Whether it is having an affair with a White House intern, or accepting money from anyone who would finance your campaign....On other occasions it just comes down to portraying a "healthy" family life.

Just this morning i watched a rerun of a Jack and Jackie Kennedy documentary. There had been so many rumors about JFKs love affairs around but the tabloids didn't really pick them up.
So back then there have been double standards on morale issues. The president could do what he liked, without much fear of the press.

Times had changed by the 90s. In 1998/99 you just couldn't get away from yet another story of Clinton's sex life when zapping through the channels.
(ok, I am exaggerating. You could switch to the disney channel)

So are double standards done? Is it that people are more accepting of behavior that does not conform to traditional family life?

Well, yes. In parts. There is a vivid gay community. Interracial relationships are being accepted. But wait.... not really, right?

How many hate crimes against gays every year?

How many countries where being gay is illegal?

How many countries where Bill and Monica would have gone to jail for their particular practise?

How would you feel as a white walking with your black girlfriend through a black neighbourhood?

How would you feel walking with her through small town suburbia instead?

Or as a black:
how good are your odds that your white girlfriend's parents would like you from the start? without prejudice?

Ok, people are more open about sex, true. But not everywhere and not under all circumstances. We don't have to go to far-away countries for that. To my knowledge the Federal Republic of Germany was never ruled by a single.
Or the U.S.: has there been a not-married president? If so, he probably was a widower.
Is someone who is single less fit to be in a public office?

Politicians still feel the pressure of portraying healthy family values.
I like family! Having a wife and a few kids is how I see myself within the next ten years. It may be safe to say that a majority of people share visions like that. But are we open enough to accept people who disagree not only on a private level (friends) but also on a political level(Heads of State)?

I will believe that we are an open society as soon as a single-mom can gather enough votes to become Chancellor, Prime Minister, or President.

For Germany, things may be on the move right now. We will have a new President next week. But the office only has representational functions. Furthermore the female candidate Prof. Gesine Schwan is not expected to win. Also, she was married but her husband passed away.
(I like her, I attended her class on Hobbes and Rousseau when she taught PSCI at my University in the late 90s)

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify, I am not talking about a representational office but one of executive power.

How is it in your home countries? Is it realistic that anyone can be elected?

Riots in Berlin - Attempt of a Summary

Whenever May 1st draws near the residents in Berlin are in a mood of expectation.
Will this day remain peaceful? It hasn't been since 1987. That year the first "Revolutionäre 1. Mai Demo" (revolutionary may 1st rally)was held. This is what followed: barricades, stones, burning cars, pillaged shops on the one hand.... teargas, batons, water cannons on the other hand.

Intensity has varied over the years, so have the strategies employed by the police. This year, a mixed strategy of deescalation and zero tolerance of violence was attempted.

While the Walpurgisnacht (the night before May 1st) went relatively peaceful (many arrests, many injuries but only light ones) things heated up the next day.

I am not going to give you a detailed account because I wasn't there.
On the fringes of a NPD rally (right wing extremists) violence occurred in the afternoon between skinheads, left wing radicals and the police. 55 arrests.

Later that day, a festival was held in Kreuzberg which should promote non-violence. That worked till about 8pm.

Then the usual (sad) thing happened: radicals erected and burned barricades, attacked the police force with bottles and stones and this was met by watercannons and teargas.

The police acted swiftly and struck hard.

Overall, comments suggest that this year was better than expected.

Sidenote: Again lots of teens were there for the fun. Witnesses often saw people hooding and afterwards photographing themselves with their cell phones. Also, this year some anti-american resentments could be seen as at least in one occasion an American flag was burnt.

May 1st, bomb threats, the OSCE conference on anti-semitism and terrorism

These are eventful days in Berlin.
Yesterday the Hilton Hotel in Berlin's scenic center was evacuated due to a bomb threat. It seemed very serious. After like 5 hours the search of the Hotel was stopped without result.

It is being speculated whether this was a bad joke or maybe connected to the two day OSCE conference on anti-semitism that will begin tomorrow. Or was it an Al-Quaida threat?

We don't know yet.

One thing is for sure, the police will not rest these days. On Labor Day (May 1st) there will be burning cars, pillaged stores barricades in the streets, flying stones, teargas and the like... one has to say: the same procedure as every year.


Usually our troubles here have something to do with the NAZIs but on May 1st, they are our least problem.

Every year, radical left wing extremists come from all over Germany to Kreuzberg (traditionally left wing part of Berlin) to fight.

Who are they fighting, you ask? The state, the government, capitalism, you name it. They feel like revolutionaries, I believe. It's bad. Better be out of Kreuzberg on this day.
Actually it all starts the night before. Because it is the "Walpurgis Nacht" That has to do with heathen witch craft traditions. It is rather complicated. (Careful: my assumptions are coming up.) Somehow the radicals seem to find it apealing that there may have been a sub culture of wise men and women who where declared witches and burnt by the establishment in order to keep them down. And probably the radicals feel like this is happening to them so they celebrate the night when the witches supposedly had held their "annual conference" on a certain mountain. Funnily, there is more than one mountain rumored to be the meeting point.

Anyway, in that night fires are burnt in the city and people fire each other up for the coming fight with the police.

The saddest part of this is, that it has become something of a tourist attraction for spoiled teens who get their kick from it. Last year I heard, that the riots would probably not have been very bad if it hadn't been for those kids who fueled them up by often being the first to throw stones at the police. The kids would have been disapointed if everything had been peaceful.


Traditionally, there is also a skinhead rally. Usually just a few hundred carefully separated from the left wing radicals by the police.
The skins march on May 1st because the Hitler government was very fond of the holiday.

By the way, Kreuzberg is not only traditionally left wing but also the part of town where most turkish immigrants live. However, they have nothing to do with the riots.


EDIT: Maybe I should add that many people celebrate Walpurgis Nacht just for fun and are not at all involved with the May 1st riots.

How should terrorism be dealt with in Germany?

Otto Schily, Minister of the Interior and former lawyer of Germany's top terrorists of the 70s, the RAF, gave an interview in Germany's top political weekly Der Spiegel


This interview was a big surprise. Schily used to be left wing and liberal, liberal enough to defend left wing terrorists in court. But times change.

After he became Minister of the Interior his opinions changed. Today he is regarded as right wing as it gets for the Social Democratic Party. And still this interview was like the drop of a bomb ( i am sorry for my military language, but it fits here)

He kind of said that eventually, it should not be ruled out to kill terrorists before they can do their deed.

For the US this isn't spectacular. For Germany it is! There is no death penalty here. German politicians of all factions criticize Guantanamo Bay. Germany does not deport foreign criminals to their home country if they will face torture or death there BUT...
referring to a terrorist statement (You love life and we love death) he said they can get it if they love it.

Maybe Schily said that unintentionally because he seemed to try to get out of it.
He went on that he was against death penalty but posed the question whether it is part of the right to self-defense to kill suspected terrorists before they comitted a crime.

The coalition partner, The Green Party, is furious about Schily's comments but the conservative opposition applauded him.

I can tell you, there will be lots of lots of debates on this.

Reason for my posting delay

My gf has been in town for a few days. That is why I only commented on some issues but didn't upload a major post.

I am attending a class in school about modern political theories. I don't need a grade or anything but it is interesting stuff. Today the prof explained something about the plan for the semester including some remarks on Robert Kagan. Something like: "Kagan tries to shape foreign policy according to Hobbes. But he doesn't. We are going to see that he didn't read Hobbes well enough."

This and some other remarks made the opening session of the class very interesting. I am curious about how it will develop. The class material will be online in a yahoo group. I will post the link, but just a few minutes ago it wasn't working. I 'll post it later.

Talked to a priest yesterday night

I had a post a few days ago (April 9th) in which I wondered if I could call myself a Christian/Catholic because I have my issues with the Gospels.

Last night I talked to a catholic priest about some of them. Really casual atmosphere because we where playing cards at the time.
I asked about Jesus' birthplace, why he was called of Nazareth and not of Bethlehem. Related to that I wanted to know why Jesus is from David's kin if only Josef was from his kin and Josef wasn't the father of Jesus.

He pointed out that the jewish society of the time didn't really care about biological fatherhood. Instead, it was important if a man accepted a born child as his own. (I think that this was quite common in many societies of the ancient world)
Therefore it didn't matter if Josef biologically was the father of Jesus. Jesus is from Josef's (and David's) kin because Josef accepted him as a son. Along the same line Josef didn't need to have a biological connection to David. Being from the same town is being from the same tribe/family.

But in general he said the whole childhood of Jesus is rather unclear. He says that the Gospel writers probably didn't have clear accounts of his childhood but wrote them down because "it must have been this way". Since they believed that Jesus was the messiah they found it obvious that his childhood had to have included all the elements that had been prophecied.
The priest summarized it like this: the childhood stories are not to be taken literally, they are not historical facts in todays sense of the word. But they are no forgery either. At the time of writing they were just the most plausible explanation.

A third point came up but we couldn't go into detail on it because we got distracted by our cards. That was whether Jesus could be called a pacifist or Christian religion could be called pacifist in general. He said that Jesus wasn't a pacifist in our sense of the word.
That reminded me of a discussion i have had with Miguel last year. You can find it in my archives under March 27th 2003: "Is God blessing America?" in the comments. ( I don't know how to link to specific articles in my archives, sorry)

Unfortunately the priest couldn't explain his thoughts any further last night but I will ask for his detailed opinion when we meet again next week.

Puzzling historical parallel?

The two German policemen missing in Iraq are probably dead. I mentioned that already. But...
I watched the news yesterday: Some Iraqis who claim to have been involved in the attack on the convoy apologized, saying they never wanted to hit Germans. They would like the Germans and hated the British and Americans.

This alone is hard to digest. So it has really come to that: Hatred so deep that one can be sure these Iraqis would commit Genocide if they had the tools. They hate Americans and British not only for their politics but also for their nationality.

Now, my father is an archaeologist and he has spent two years in Iraq in the 50s. There was one incident which really went under his skin.
The european group was in the city center of some town when suddenly an angry mob began throwing stones at them shouting and cursing. The guide of the group shouted back that the group was German and not English. All of a sudden the crowd calmed down made way and raised their right hands for the NAZI Greeting.

Anti-semitism forms strange alliances.

Situations in history change, ideologies change, mentalities change... all the more frightening if hatred can last that long.

However, I am aware of other interviews I have seen yesterday in which some Iraqi claimed that they would crush and destroy all the foreigners no matter if they were Americans, Germans, Chinese or whatever.

This post is not meant as a political opinion but just as a note of some thoughts that have crossed my mind recently. I am not ready to daw large scale concluisions by now.


Sidenote to Anti-semitism in the region: No matter if we think the movie "The Passion of the Christ" is anti-semite or not, its success in the arab world indicates that a large proportion of it seems to think so.

Two members of German Special Forces "GSG 9" probably shot in Iraq

The situation is still unclear. But two Germans are missing in Iraq since their convoy was ambushed near Falluja. Actually, I don't know what they did there, because German forces are not involved in the occupation of Iraq. Probably they are there because the GSG 9 counts as police force and not as part of the military.

In any case, correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know these would be the first two non-civilian German victims in the Iraq conflict.
(I think there have been casualties among the journalists)

According to media reports a reporter from British Sunday telegraph supposedly claimed to have seen the bodies of two Germans.

I don't know if that will add a different perspective to German views on the conflict.

My guess is, that public opinion will even more than before stress that the situation in Iraq is out of control and that one shouldn't have gone there in the first place.

However, the government has made its point clear several times: Germany didn't agree with the US that the war was the best decision to be made, but will do everything in its power to help the allied forces succeed in building a democratic and peaceful Iraq as long as it can be done without the involvement of German troops.

I am curious to observe if that opinion will change in the near future.

The scriptures of Mel

Yesterday night I went to watch the Passion of the Christ.
It touched me. It is really incredible how much torture a human being can endure. Especially if (according to the bible) he did it freely. He chose to endure it.

I felt much compassion, especially for mother Mary during the film. However, faith-wise the film didn't have any effect on me. Maybe it was due to the nature of the project. Gibson intended to show the suffering, the Passion. He did. Hard to believe how much blood fits inside a human being. Much criticism has arisen from the way Gibson combined the four Gospels into his own version. That alone isn't a good point because every movie about Jesus does that.

I can understand why jews today feel scape goated in that movie. Some of the characters (especially among the high priests) look like the caricatures the Nazis printed in their yellow press paper "Der Stürmer". But even in Mel's version not all the jews want Jesus dead.
So I wouldn't say that the movie is anti-semite. It is as anti-semite as the bible, I guess. So if we decide to live with the amount of blame that the bible casts on the jews we have to live with the message of the movie as well. I think the romans come off at least as badly. Pilate as an incompetent administrator and his soldiers as bloodthirsty beasts.

Final impression of the movie: Much ado about nothing.
Moving? yes
Inspiring? No
Hatemongering? Not really.

Easter weekend - am I religious?

Traffic jams all over Germany... People want to travel... I won't. But I will go to the movies tonight. I was very reluctant at first but tonight I will watch "The Passion of the Christ". It is a little strange to watch that movie on the day we remember as Jesus' crucifiction day.

However, I have been curious about the movie, so today might be as good as any day to watch it.

I like Mel Gibson's attempt to be as authentic as possible. I like the idea of filming in Aramaeic and Latin. From seeing the trailer I am a little disturbed by the accent of Pontius Pilate. Doesn't sound like the Latin I learned in school. Anyway, I don't wanna judge before I have seen the whole thing. The spirit of attempted authenticity will probably also show in the amount of violence, blood and gore.

But how authentic can it be?

Firstly, we know today that The Romans didn't drive nails through people's hands and feet because they are too weak to support the whole body weight. Instead the Romans used the wrists and ankles. But in Mel's trailer they do it the "traditional" way. But anyway, tat is only a detail.

Secondly, and more importantly, how authentic is the source? How authentic is the bible?
Mel Gibson's main point in his strive for authenticity is that he tells the exact story of the scriptures. But is this really how it happened?

I have my thoughts about the authenticity of the bible. It seems like I cannot forget for one second that I am a historian. We are tought to critically read and interpret our sources. When reading the bible I can't help but applying the concept of critical reading to it as well.

Some examples that puzzle me: (I apologize in advance for not quoting my sources here exactly as historians should. This due to the fact that I am only brainstorming right now. I will check my sources later, though. If any reader can assist me, I would be grateful)

1. Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Why is he called Jesus of Nazareth and not of Bethlehem? Bethlehem is the town of David. And a king would have to be from David's kin. So maybe, people told the "legend" of Jesus being from Bethlehem in order to make him fulfill the prophecy. That he would be the king of the Jews coming from the town of David.

2. Let's say, he is from Bethlehem, though. So the prophecy would fit. Or wouldn't it? Because why are they in Bethlehem in the first place? Because it is the town of Josef not the town of Mary. So if anyone is from David's kin then Josef. But Jesus isn't Josef's son. Mary was a virgin when being pregnant with Jesus. So, how can Jesus be from David's kin then? How can he be the King of the Jews prophesied?

3. Last sunday in mass the priest explained to the kids what made Jesus different from your usual king. (Because people courted Jesus as if he were a king). The priest said among other things that Jesus chose to ride into Jerusalem on a donkey out of humility, modesty. A normal king would have had a noble steed. Then a few minutes later the according part from the scripture was read and it said that Jesus told his disciples to go to a village and borrow a donkey from a peasant because he needed it to fulfil the prophecy of the king of the jews coming into Jerusalem on a donkey.
That hit me like a hammer. So the bible basically said that Jesus strategically chose to borrow a donkey for propaganda effects. (Sharply contrasting the reason the priest gave to the kids just minutes earlier)

These are only three points that make me wonder sometimes if I can be christian if I raise these kind of questions? I think I lelieve in God and Jesus. But I am a very sceptical person. Because of my doubts I haven't been to church for about 8 years. But a few weeks ago I decided that I wanted to give it another shot. There is a great priest in my church. I am going to ask my questions to him. Maybe it will be good to hear what a theologist has to say on those matters.

EDIT:
I CHECKED THE BIBLE FOR SOME QUOTATIONS: I FOUND THE STORY FROM MY THIRD POINT IN MATTHEW 21

Iraq - will it be a second Vietnam?

In the current situation, it doesn't matter anymore whether one supported the war that led to Saddams fall or not. If Iraq cannot be transformed into a peaceful democracy, the world will have to face years or decades of chaos, more terrorist threats and maybe economic (oil) crisis.

This worst case scenario probably needs some explanation, but I may get into that some other time (hopefully).

I think, that the Coalition troops are in the process of losing control over the situation in Iraq. The Shiites are on the rise, they have leaders like Al-Sadr who propose a radical Islam free from foreign intervention (Especially if it comes from a christian-jewish background).

Some are suggesting that troops should be pulled out before Iraq turns into Bush's Vietnam... well, I don't think retreating will help.

The power vaquum in Iraq is bad enough as it is, pulling out will probably make it worse. Think of the underlying message. It would say: "We failed".

So, the situation is, America and its allies (plus all the traditional allies who just disagreed about the usefulness of the war)are doomed to pacify Iraq. We are all doomed to success. I hate it, but I have to admit that I am rather clueless, HOW this task ahead shall be tackled.

It seems to me that we might very well see an approach similar to the one that Israel has with the palaestinians. You know, attacking "the infrastructure of terror." I think this is a bad idea. It isn't working in Israel, why should it work in Iraq?
On the other hand, as I mentioned, I don't know it any better.

What really struck me in shock and awe (so to speak) is media reports over here (Germany) that Sunites and Shiites are uniting against the "invaders". Who would have ever thought that this might happen after all those years of Sunite oppression?

So basically, my post today is not a political opinion about what is to be done... it is more of a helpless question: Really, what should be done???

I am back and have a story to tell

After nearly a year of not posting, I decided to start again.

An interesting thing happened to me a few years back. I got an email by someone pretending to be a decendant of the late Nigerian dictatorship who needed me in order to get to his money (which had been exploited from the people beforehand). The amount was several hundred million bucks and I should receive 30 million or something like that for my help.

Well, I am not a greedy person. And it seemed VERY far fetched. So I decided to inform Nigeria instead. I forwarded the email to them. I figured in this case the worst that might happen is that it is a joke and they would get a worthless email. So what?

I never heard from them or the pretender again. But today I found an article in a german computer magazine. The article is not online, unfortunately.

What I learned from it is basically this. The people who send these emails are not your typical spammers. They are crooks, frauds. If you agree to their initial proposal they will tell you that officials need to be bribed, travel costs need to be payed in advance and almost anything that will delay the payment of your 20-30 million bucks. According to national (German) statistics about 1.5 Million € are being gained by the crooks in this fashion each year!. Only in Germany. But it is a worldwide phenomenon. Internationally it is known as the 419scam. This is referring to article 419 in the Nigerian criminal code. The article about fraud.

So, the article I read today is a report about scam baiters. Meaning: people who try to scam the scammers. People who try to fool the ones that try to fool us. The baiters try to make fun of the criminals. They pretend to agree to their terms. And ask for a meeting. They will ask for a picture so they could recognize each other at the airport. Usually they ask for a very silly picture. Like: "Please balance a loaf of bread on your head." or "Hold up a sign saying 'Iama Dildo' " And they do that. And their pics can be found on the websites i give below. Here is an example, though.


The scam baiters claim to do a public service. Because if the scammers waste time with them they have less time to fool others. On top of that, people who receive scam emails might check the names of the scammers in google and get to one of the scam baiting websites.

Well, check it out.
Links to several scam baiting websites have been given in the article and I will include them here.


www.419eater.com
www.africanscam.co.uk
www.419fun.com